Contradictory Testimony Given in Malpractice Case

The credibility of the key plaintiff’s witness was placed in doubt Monday as testimony began in a malpractice suit in which a Los Angeles lawyer is accused of failing to tell his four clients about a $2-million settlement offer in a 1981 trial.

Private investigator Walter C. Goode of Orange at times contradicted statements he made earlier in the day and in pretrial depositions about his role in a product liability trial against Ford Motor Co.

The settlement offer was first made by Ford when jurors were about to start deliberations on July 30, 1981, and was renewed the next day. The offer was turned down before jurors came back with a verdict in favor of Ford on Aug. 4.

In the 1981 trial, the plaintiffs charged that the design of a Ford pickup truck was defective, causing it to ignite in a 1976 accident in Pomona. A 9-day-old infant was killed and three other people suffered burns.

The plaintiffs--a Mexican-American and three Mexican nationals--claim in the current action that their lawyer, R. Browne Greene, rejected the offer without telling them the amount or getting their consent to reject it.

Lawyer Says He Told Clients

Greene claims that he advised two of the clients, Fabiola Castro of Santa Ana and Maria Dolores Ornelas of Mexico, about the offer, the amount, its ramifications and his recommendation to reject it, which he says they did.

Goode, the private investigator in the case against Ford, admitted Monday that he could not find the other two clients, brothers Ventura Munoz Flores and Jose Munoz Flores, to bring to Greene for consultation.

Goode is the key witness because he was the primary contact between the plaintiffs and Greene’s firm, Greene, O’Reilly, Agnew & Broillet, said lawyer Paul Monzione, who is aiding flamboyant San Francisco lawyer Melvin Belli in representing the plaintiffs in the current suit. The suit seeks the amount of the settlement offer plus $845,000 in interest and $10 million in punitive damages.

Whether Goode, who had a separate contract with the plaintiffs to investigate the case, insisted on controlling communications between them and their lawyers is one of the issues in the case.

The private investigator readily admitted in court that he was concerned about the case because his contract called for a fee of 10% of any award or settlement, which would have meant $200,000 for him under Ford’s offer.

The most possibly damning testimony came when Goode was questioned by Belli.

Goode stated that Greene ordered him to tell the plaintiffs that Ford made another offer--its fourth--and that Greene rejected it. Goode said he was told not to reveal the amount because it was “not enough” and because the clients “wouldn’t understand the value of money and might accept it.”

But often during questioning by defense attorney Charles A. Lynberg of Los Angeles, Goode repeatedly failed to recall various events. At one point, he said, “My memory isn’t that accurate.”

The private investigator said he was told by Greene to bring the plaintiffs to court to discuss the $2-million offer, but that he only managed to get Castro and Ornelas to come on the morning of the verdict. In the two hours they were there, he acknowledged, Greene could have talked to the plaintiffs about the settlement offer out of his presence.

Goode’s memory also was tested in connection with an offer to settle the case before trial for $1 million. In a rare occurrence, he said, he was in a judge’s chambers during the pretrial settlement talks. He said the $1-million offer was not discussed with the plaintiffs before it was rejected.

‘Hazy Memory’

Yet Goode said he could not recall if any of the plaintiffs were even at the courthouse for that pretrial conference or if both sides met together or separately with the judge.

In a September, 1982, sworn statement, however, he said he had a “hazy memory” about Castro and Ornelas being at the pretrial conference and “vaguely” recalled some conversation between them and their lawyers.

Goode also is the subject of an investigation by the state Department of Consumer Affairs, which licenses him, concerning a complaint about his role in cases alleging improper cremations, said Gordon D. Boranian, deputy chief of the department’s Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services.

He also was heavily criticized last November after leading some 200 untrained volunteers into Joshua Tree National Monument in search of missing 3-year-old Laura Bradbury several weeks after 250 trained searchers spent five days searching the area. Laura’s parents and law enforcement authorities questioned his methods, and he was called “unprepared,” “disorganized” and concerned more with publicity.

In questioning by Belli, the private investigator said he learned about the accident through Castro’s sister, who worked in the same Santa Ana building he did, and took the case to the firm of Voorhies, Greene & O’Reilly because he wanted lawyer Richard C. Voorhies, who was fluent in Spanish, to handle the case.

Yet in questioning later by Lynberg, Goode said that when Voorhies left the firm, he wanted the plaintiffs to switch to Greene, who barely spoke Spanish, “because I thought he could more capably represent them.”

More Testimony Expected

Goode is expected to continue his testimony this afternoon.

In opening statements, Belli claimed that the plaintiffs did not know they had lost the case until a month or so after the verdict. He claimed that Greene sent Goode nearly six months later to get Ornelas and Castro to sign written statements saying they had been advised of the offer and the amount and agreed to reject it.

While Belli contended that the move was an attempt to cover up Greene’s conduct, Lynberg said in his opening remarks that it was used to rebut a December, 1981, story that appeared in a legal trade publication in which Greene was accused of rejecting the offer without his clients’ consent.